[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11335-S11339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of
conference on the bill (H.R. 2160) making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
The clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate, to the bill (H.R.
2160) having met, after full and free conference, have agreed
to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this
report, signed by all of the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of September 17, 1997.)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 20
minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking
member, and following the expiration or yielding back of time, the
conference report be considered agreed to and the
[[Page S11336]]
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to present
for the Senate's approval today the conference report on H.R. 2160, the
Fiscal Year 1998 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
The conference agreement provides total appropriations of $49.7
billion. This is $4.1 billion less than the fiscal year 1997 enacted
level and $2.6 billion less than the level requested by the President.
It is $964 million less than the total appropriations recommended by
the Senate-passed bill and $146 million more than the level recommended
by the House bill.
Including Congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-
year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total
discretionary spending for fiscal year 1998 of $13.751 billion in
budget authority and $13.997 billion in outlays. These amounts are
consistent with the revised discretionary spending allocations
established for this conference agreement.
Both the House and the Senate passed this bill at the end of July.
The conferees met and completed conference on September 17. I believe
it is a credit to all members of the conference committee that we were
able to reach a conference agreement quickly. Special recognition is
due the ranking member of the subcommittee, my colleague from Arkansas,
Senator Bumpers; the chairman of the House Subcommittee, Congressman
Skeen of New Mexico; and the ranking member of the House Subcommittee,
Congresswoman Kaptur, for their hard work and cooperation in making
this possible.
It was our intent that the conference report on this bill would be
adopted by both bodies of the Congress and sent to the President prior
to the October 1, 1997, start of the fiscal year. However, it was the
decision of the leadership to withhold Senate approval of this
conference agreement until further progress was made on the FDA reform
bill, which reauthorizes fees to expedite FDA's prescription drug
review and approval process.
The conference agreement on this appropriations bill was adopted by
the House of Representatives on Monday, October 6, by a vote of 399
yeas to 18 nays. Senate adoption of this conference report today is the
final step remaining to allow this measure to be sent to the President
for signature into law. We have every indication that the bill will be
signed by the President.
Approximately $37.2 billion, close to 75 percent of the total new
budget authority provided by this conference report, is for domestic
food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These
include food stamps; commodity assistance; the special supplemental
food program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; and the school
lunch and breakfast programs. This is roughly the same as the House
bill level and $923 million less than the Senate level. The difference
from the Senate recommended level is principally due to the fact that
the Senate receded to the House on the transfer of funding Food and
Consumer Service studies and evaluations to the Economic Research
Service, and accepted the lower House bill level for the Commodity
Assistance Program based on the Department of Agriculture's revised
estimate of program need. In addition, the Senate receded to the House
level of $100 million for the Food Stamp Program contingency reserve,
$900 million less than the Senate bill level.
For agriculture programs, the conference report recommends a total of
$6.9 billion, $57 million more than the House bill level. This amount
includes $1.2 billion for agricultural research and education, $423
million for extension activities, $430 million for the Animal Plant
Health and Inspection Service, $589 for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, $703 million for the Farm Service Agency, and $253 million for
the Risk Management Agency.
For conservation programs, the conference report recommends almost
$790 million, $30 million more than the House bill level but $36
million less than the amount recommended by the Senate.
For rural economic and community development programs, the bill
recommends $2.1 billion, $47 million more than the House level and $9
million more than the Senate bill level. Included in this amount is
$652 million for the Rural Community Advancement Program, nearly $8
million more than the Senate bill level, and the Senate bill level of
$535 million for the rental assistance program. The conference report
also provides a total rural housing loan program level of $4.2 billion.
For foreign assistance and related programs of the Department of
Agriculture, the bill recommends $1.7 billion, including $131 million
in new budget authority for the Foreign Agricultural Service and a
total program level of $1.1 billion for the Public Law 480 Food for
Peace Program.
The Food and Drug Administration receives one of the largest
discretionary spending increases over the fiscal year 1997 level.
Included in the appropriation provided by the conference agreement for
salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration is $24
million for food safety and $34 million for youth tobacco prevention.
These are the full amounts requested by the Administration for these
initiatives.
Mr. President, there is no reason to continue temporary stop-gap
funding for the programs and activities funded by this bill. As I
indicated earlier, this conference report was filed on September 17 and
was adopted by the House of Representatives on October 6. Senate
passage of this conference report today is the final step necessary to
send this fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill to the President for
signature into law. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of
this conference report.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, in bringing to the Senate floor the
conference report for the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill for the
Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and
related agencies. We concluded a successful conference with the House
and although our 602(b) allocation had to be adjusted downward, we were
still able to maintain relatively high levels of funding for many
important programs.
As I stated during consideration of the Senate bill, I had hoped we
could provide higher levels of funding for agricultural research. I am
happy to report that the conference agreement provides a higher level
of funding for the Agricultural Research Service than was contained in
either the earlier House or Senate versions. Funding for the Food
Safety Inspection Service is provided at a level more than $15 million
above last year and additional funds are included for the President's
Food Safety Initiative at USDA and FDA.
The conference report contains funding for conservation programs well
above last year's level and I am happy to report that the House and
Senate conferees have agreed to changes in rural development activities
that will protect program integrity and make them more efficient. The
WIC Program retains the increase of more than $100 million above fiscal
year 1997 that was included in the Senate bill and full funding for
FDA's youth tobacco initiative is provided.
I regret that we had to defer consideration of this conference report
until this time. We had completed conference action and had been
prepared to conclude action on this bill well in advance of the end of
the previous fiscal year. However, questions raised by the
authorization committees of the Food and Drug Administration postponed
this final action until today. I look forward to quick passage of this
conference report and approval by the President.
We have already seen the President exercise his new authorities of
line-item veto on bills presented to him. I no doubt suspect that he
will review this legislation with a similar critical eye and, without
doubt, he will find items that had not originated with the executive
branch. Mr. President, I do not here intend to reopen floor debate on
the ill-conceived line-item veto. However, I remind my colleagues, and
my friend in the White House, that the Congress has very explicit
responsibilities derived from the U.S. Constitution relating to the
expenditure of funds. Simply because an item does not
[[Page S11337]]
originate with the executive does not mean it is without merit. Let me
plainly observe that when this bill was on the Senate floor in July of
this year, it passed by a resounding 98 to 0. Mr. President, that
simple statistic should speak for itself and send an important message
to those who would undue the work we have done.
In closing, let me again say what a pleasure it has been to work with
my friend from Mississippi, the chairman of this subcommittee. He
understands the programs and the issues contained in this bill and his
leadership has been beyond value. Let me also again thank the
subcommittee's majority staff, Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter,
Rochelle Graves, and, on this side, Galen Fountain, Carole Geagley, and
Ben Noble of my personal staff. All their work has been important to
completing work on this bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending Agriculture and related
agencies appropriations bill provides $49.0 billion in new budget
authority [BA] and $41.5 billion in new outlays to fund most of the
programs of the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies
for fiscal year 1998.
When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed
actions are taken into account, the bill totals $48.8 billion in budget
authority and $49.2 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1998.
Of the $49.2 billion in outlays, $35.2 billion fund entitlement
programs like food stamps, child nutrition programs, and price support
payments. The remaining $14.0 billion funds discretionary programs like
rural housing and economic development, food safety inspection,
activities of the Food and Drug Administration, agriculture research
and the Farm Service Agency.
The conference report falls within the current 302(b) allocation for
the Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. I
commend the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for bringing this
bill to the floor within the subcommittee's allocation.
The bill contains important increases over the 1997 level from
programs like the WIC Program and the new food safety initiative, and I
urge adoption of the conference report.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of the conference report be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
H.R. 2160, AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS, 1998 SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
[Fiscal year 1998, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 13,751 ....... 35,048 48,799
Outlays..................................................... ....... 13,997 ....... 35,205 49,202
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 13,791 ....... 35,048 48,839
Outlays..................................................... ....... 14,167 ....... 35,205 49,372
President's request:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 14,025 ....... 35,048 49,073
Outlays..................................................... ....... 14,282 ....... 35,205 49,487
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 13,650 ....... 35,048 48,698
Outlays..................................................... ....... 13,989 ....... 35,205 49,194
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 13,791 ....... 35,048 49,839
Outlays..................................................... ....... 14,038 ....... 35,205 49,243
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............................................ ....... -40 ....... ......... -40
Outlays..................................................... ....... -170 ....... ......... -170
President's request:
Budget authority............................................ ....... -274 ....... ......... -274
Outlays..................................................... ....... -285 ....... ......... -285
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 101 ....... ......... 101
Outlays..................................................... ....... 8 ....... ......... 8
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................ ....... -40 ....... ......... -40
Outlays..................................................... ....... -41 ....... ......... -41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret to come to the floor once again
to talk about wasteful and unnecessary spending in an appropriations
conference agreement.
During Senate consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill, I
presented a nine-page list of add-ons, earmarks, and set-asides in the
bill and report language.
I had highlighted four provisions in the bill language of the Senate
version of the Agriculture appropriations bill, and not surprisingly,
every one of these provisions, with minor modifications, is included in
the final conference bill.
Interestingly, though, the conferees also made sure that most of the
earmarks and set-asides in the report language of both Houses is
included by reference in the final agreement. The report language of
the conference agreement says:
The House and Senate report language which is not changed
by the conference are approved by the committee of
conference. The statement of the managers, while repeating
some report language for emphasis, does not intend to negate
the language referred to above unless expressly provided
herein.
So the list I present to the Senate today does not represent all of
the wasteful spending in the Agriculture appropriations bill, but only
that which the conferees made the effort to specifically mention in the
conference statement of managers. The rest of the earmarks are simply
carried over from the Senate and House Appropriations Committee
reports.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Objectionable Provisions in H.R. 2160 Conference Agreement on FY 1998
Agriculture Appropriations Bill
bill language
$20 million earmarked for water and waste disposal systems
for the Colonias along the U.S.-Mexico border
$15 million for water systems for rural and and native
villages in Alaska
Section 716 contains ``Buy America'' domestic source
restrictions on expenditures of appropriations in this bill
Section 729 exempts the Martin Luther King area of Pawley's
Island, South Carolina, from the population eligibility
ceiling for housing loans and grants
Section 730 prohibits closing or relocating the FDA
Division of Drug Analysis in St. Louis, Missouri
report language
[Note: Statement of managers explicitly directs that report
language is binding, and that any language in either Senate
or House report that is not specifically addressed in
conference report should be considered direction of the
conference. Following list represents objectionable
provisions specifically stated in conference agreement.]
Agricultural Research Service:
Earmarks and directive language for research programs:
$250,000 for apple-specific E. coli research at the Eastern
Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
$1 million for grazing research, earmarked equally for
centers in Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania
$500,000 for fusarium head blight research at the Cereal
Rust Laboratory in St. Paul, Minnesota
$500,000 for research on karnal bunt at Manhattan, Kansas
$1.25 million for Everglades Initiative, of which $500,000
is for research on biocontrol of melaleuca and other exotic
pests at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, $500,000 is for hydrology
studies at Canal Point, Florida, and $250,000 is for a
hydrologist to work on south Florida Everglades restoration
$1 million for an Arkansas entity to perform dietary
research, $500,000 for similar work by a Texas entity, and
$250,000 for each of three other centers proposing to do
dietary research.
Earmark of $250,000 for Appalachian Soil and Water
Conservation Laboratory
$650,000 for ARS to assist Alaska in support of arctic
germplasm
$250,000 to initiate a program for the National Center for
Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture at the Interior Department's
Leetown, West Virginia Science Center, where the national
aquaculture center will be collocated
$250,000 for high-yield cotton germplasm research at
Stoneville, Mississippi
$250,000 to support research on infectious diseases in
warmwater fish at the Fish Disease and Parasite Research
Laboratory at Auburn, Alabama
$500,000 increase for the National Aquaculture Research
Center in Arkansas
$250,000 for grain legume genetics research at Washington
State University
$500,000 earmark for additional scientists to do research
on parasitic mites and Africanized honeybees at the ARS Bee
Laboratory in Weslaco, Texas
$100,000 to continue hops research in the Pacific Northwest
$500,000 increase for the National Warmwater Aquaculture
Research Center in Mississippi, and direction in the House
report that the center be renamed the Thad Cochran National
Warmwater Aquaculture Center
$500,000 for Northwest Nursery Crops Research Center in
Oregon
[[Page S11338]]
$250,000 increase for Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory
in Georgia
$250,000 increase for an animal physiologist position at
the Fort Keough Laboratory in Montana
$250,000 increase for additional scientific staffing at
Small Fruits Research Laboratory in Mississippi
$5 million for Formosan subterranean termite research
$200,000 for sugarcane biotechnology research at Southern
Regional Research Center in Louisiana
Earmark of $500,000 for ginning research at laboratory in
Texas
$100,000 for funding of research at Poisonous Plant
Laboratory at Logan, Utah
$1 million for coastal wetlands and erosion research at the
Rice Research Station in Louisiana
$250,000 for research at the Food Fermentation Center in
Raleigh, North Carolina
$450,000 to hire two small grain pathologists, one at the
ARS laboratory in Raleigh, North Carolina, and the other at
the laboratory at Aberdeen, Iowa
$950,000 for rice research in Beaumont, Texas, and
Stuttgart, Arkansas
$200,000 for plant genetics equipment for the ARS
laboratory at Greenhouse, Missouri
$700,000 for natural products in Mississippi
Earmarks for unrequested building projects:
$5.2 million for the Western Human Nutrition Research
Center in Davis, California
$1.8 million for the Avian Disease Labs in East Lansing,
Michigan
$7.9 million for two projects in Mississippi (planning and
design for a Biocontrol and Insect Rearing Laboratory in
Stoneville, and National Center for Natural Products in
Oxford)
$606,000 for a pest quarantine and integrated pest
management facility in Montana
$4.4 million for Human Nutrition Research Center in North
Dakota
$4.824 million for the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in South
Carolina
$600,000 for a Poisonous Plant Laboratory in Utah
$6 million for a National Center for Cool and Cold Water
Aquaculture in Leetown, West Virginia
Supportive language:
Notes importance of barley stripe rust research at Pullman,
Washington laboratory and expects work on controlling root
disease of wheat and barley in cereal-based production
systems to continue at FY 1997 levels
Support the addition of a new lettuce geneticist/plant
breeder position at the ARS in Salinas, California
Expects ARS to expand research for meadowfoam at Oregon
State University and the ARS facility at Peoria, Illinois
Directs National Sedimentation Laboratory to initiate
integrated watershed research program for Yalobusha River
Basin and Grenada Lake
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service:
Earmarks:
$51.5 million for 110 special research grants:
Less than $7 million of this amount was requested, and the
conferees reduced funding for 3 requested projects
All but $7 million of the $51.5 million is earmarked for
particular states.
Almost $9 million for unrequested administrative costs in
connection with 14 research programs in specific states,
including:
$150,000 for the Center for Human Nutrition in Baltimore,
Maryland
$844,000 for the Geographic Information System program in
Georgia, Chesapeake Bay, Arkansas, North Dakota, Washington,
and Wisconsin, and new entities in New Mexico, and Colorado
$100,000 for the mariculture program at University of North
Carolina at Wilmington
$150,000 for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness
$3.354 million for shrimp aquaculture in Arizona, Hawaii,
Mississippi, Massachusetts, and South Carolina
Directs consideration of Pennsylvania State University E.
coli Reference Center as candidate for $2 million food safety
initiative
$6.1 million for 14 unrequested special grants for
extension activities and personnel in specific states
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Earmarks and directive language:
$1.225 million for rabies control programs in Ohio, Texas,
New York, and other states
$400,000 for a geographic information system project to
prepare to expand boll weevil eradication program into
remaining cotton production areas
Supportive language: Urges APHIS to continue cooperative
efforts to eradicate boll weevil in New Mexico
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Earmarks: $1 million for marketing assistance to Alaska
National Resources Conservation Service:
Earmarks:
$350,000 for Great Lakes Basin Program for soil and erosion
sediment control
$3 million for technical assistance in Franklin County,
Mississippi
$750,000 for Deer Creek watershed in Oklahoma
$300,000 to assist farmers around Lake Otisco in New York
$100,000 for Trees Forever program in Iowa
Supportive language: Supports continuation of Potomac
Headwaters project, which was proposed by Senate at $1.8
million, and encourage continued work with West Virginia
Department of Agriculture for further development of poultry
waste energy recovery project at Moorefield and project
implementation at Franklin
Rural Community Advancement Program:
Supportive language: Urges consideration of grant proposals
from 5 entities (in Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, and the
Midwest) which were not mentioned in either report [page 52
of conference report]
Rural Utilities Service:
Supportive language: Encourages Agriculture Department to
give consideration to an application from State University of
New York Telecommunications Center for Education for a
distance learning project, which was not mentioned in either
report.
Total objectionable provisions: $152.4 million.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me take a moment to highlight some of
the items that are specifically earmarked in the conference agreement.
The conferees earmark $3.354 million of the research funds provided
to the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
[CSREES] for shrimp aquaculture studies in Hawaii, Mississippi,
Massachusetts, California, and my home State, Arizona. Funding for
shrimp aquaculture is a perennial congressional add-on that has not, to
my knowledge, ever been included in an administration budget request.
And I have yet to fathom the logic of conducting shrimp research in the
desert.
The conferees earned another $150,000 from the same CSREES account
for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness. Again, this item
was not included in the budget request but was added by the House with
the expectation that the Department of Agriculture would ``exploit
every opportunity to collaborate with the Center''--according to the
House report language.
Two earmarks are included in the conference managers' statement for
the National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture in Leetown, WV.
The conferees earned another $6 million to complete construction of a
building at this site, which was funded at the same level in the fiscal
year 1997 bill. And the conferees also provided $250,000 to initiate a
program to be conducted at this new facility which, according to the
Senate report language, will ``ensure that risks associated with the
long-term stability of the [cool and cold water aquaculture] industry
are reduced.''
Finally, the conferees earmarked $1.7 million for new personnel at
various centers. The specific earmarks in the statement of managers
language include: $500,000 for additional scientists to do research on
parasitic mites and Africanized honeybees at the Agriculture Research
Service Bee Laboratory in Weslaco, TX; $250,000 for an animal
physiologist position at the Fort Keough Laboratory in Montana;
$250,000 for additional scientific staffing at the Small Fruits
Research Laboratory in Mississippi; $450,000 to hire two small grain
pathologists, one at the Agriculture Research Laboratory in Raleigh,
NC, and the other at the laboratory at Aberdeen, IA; and $250,000 for a
hydrologist to work on south Florida Everglades restoration. The report
language of both Houses and the conferees also includes numerous
instances of language supporting or urging or encouraging various
agencies to hire additional staff personnel, including a particular
reference in the managers' statement, that was not included in either
report, to express the conferees' ``support [for] the addition of a new
lettuce geneticist/plant breeder position at the U.S. Agricultural
Research Station in Salinas, CA.''
Mr. President, these are just a few examples of the egregiously
wasteful spending practices of the Congress. I cannot condone wasting
millions of taxpayer dollars at a time when we are finally making
progress toward a balanced budget. Even when we have eliminated annual
deficits, hopefully within just a few years, our Nation will still face
a debt of over $5.4 trillion. Why not stop wasting money on unnecessary
projects, and start repaying this huge debt?
I plan to recommend that the President exercise his line item veto
authority to eliminate these earmarks and set-asides. I hope he does
so, because eliminating unnecessary spending is in the best interest of
all Americans.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my colleagues',
Mr. Feingold and Mr. Grams, efforts to clarify study language included
in the
[[Page S11339]]
Agriculture appropriations bill being discussed today.
My friends from the Northeast have worked hard to boost prices above
market clearing levels by creating a regional compact for their
farmers. Now that the compact is implemented and operating, we need a
timely, comprehensive economic analysis by the Office of Management and
Budget of the marketing and pricing of milk within the six State
compact and surrounding areas. The pricing of milk is an extremely
complex issue. Artificially manipulating the marketing and pricing of
milk will have major impacts on other regions of the United States,
like Wisconsin.
Their proposal to raise prices for farmers has worked well and that
cost is being passed on to consumers. A recently released study
announced that Massachusetts consumers will pay an additional $25
million for their milk over the next 12 months. The print media has
reported that consumers are paying $.27 a gallon more per gallon of
milk in the compact area. We need to analyze the impact this price
increase has not only on government purchases of dairy products for
lunch programs, but also the impact on low-income families that spend
more of their income on food and dairy products.
Although the program only regulates class I milk, other classes will
be impacted by the economic signals encouraging Northeast dairy farmers
to overproduce. What happens to that excess fluid or manufacturing milk
that will be produced in the Northeast and forced to find a new
processing plant outside the compact area? Again, the print media has
reported that distressed raw milk has moved out of the Northeast to
plants in Ohio and as far away as Wisconsin and Minnesota. Ohio plants
reportedly were paying $8.00 per cwt. delivered milk filling all
manufacturing plants to capacity in that State. That excess supply of
milk added to the overproduction that occurred in the United States
further exasperating record low price paid to farms this summer.
Finally, the study should consider a cost/benefit analysis for each
State participating in the compact. For example, Massachusetts has only
about 300 dairy farms, roughly 10 percent of New England total, while
its consumers pay half of the aggregate total consumer costs.
I encourage the Office of Management and Budget to take a serious
look at the issue.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the conference report (105-252) on
Department of Agriculture appropriations includes $34.4 million for
resource conservation and development [RC&D]. The conferees note that
this increase in funding is not specifically earmarked for any
initiative but should be used for approved RC&D Councils waiting for
funding. I agree that the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]
should prioritize funding for newly approved RC&D Councils. These
councils provide much needed assistance to watersheds and conservation
districts seeking to maximize the environmental benefits of their
conservation programs. RC&D Councils should be funded. RC&D is a very
important program for protection and prudent development of our
Nation's natural resource base. Working through local RC&D Councils,
this program helps enhance our ability to meet economic objectives
within the context of a wise and sustainable use of our natural
resources. In Washington State, a State rich in natural resources, RC&D
offers the chance to meet the challenges of threatened resources in the
face of demands for continued economic development.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Washington.
The purpose of the RC&D program is to encourage and improve the
capability of State and local units of government and local nonprofit
organizations in rural areas to plan, develop, and carry out programs
for resource conservation and development. The NRCS also helps
coordinate available Federal, State, and local programs to ensure
adequate protection of natural resources while promoting sound
development practices. Funding of the RC&D Councils is an important
priority for the NRCS, as correctly emphasized by the conferees, and I
urge the NRCS to not overlook opportunities to enhance the efforts of
the RC&D Councils in a manner complimentary and consistent with these
stated objectives.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues in
expressing support for the important work of RC&D Councils as well as
opportunities to enhance these efforts. I urge the NRCS to seek avenues
that maximize the beneficial conservation and environmental purposes of
RC&D activities.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as provided by the unanimous-consent
agreement taking up this appropriations conference report, there are 20
minutes equally divided available for further discussion of the
conference report. I have had some indication that there may be one or
two Senators who may wish to comment. Pending their arrival on the
floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have been advised by the staff that
hotlines have been sent out to Members on both sides, and we have no
indication that any other Senator wants to come and speak on the
subject of the conference report.
Therefore, I am authorized by the distinguished ranking member to
yield back all time remaining on the conference report on both sides of
the aisle, and I now so do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the conference report is
agreed to.
The conference report was agreed to.
____________________